Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54278 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ram Awadh Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Judicial-I Varanasi Mandal And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bedi Lal Verma,Amar Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhaiya Lal Yadav,Manoj Kumar Yadav,Sandeep Kumar Agrahari
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Amar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Sri V.K. Upadhyay, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sandeep Kumar Agrahari, learned counsel for the private respondents.
This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. It is contended that by the order impugned name of petitioner has been expunged from the revenue records.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and writ petition against the said proceedings is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They have placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in case of Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner had contested the proceedings filed under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act till the stage of appeal. It had been constant view of this Court as well as the Apex Court that such proceedings are summary in nature wherein the title over the land is not decided and the proceedings do not confer upon any right or title on the person whose name is entered in the revenue records.
In Mathura (Supra) this Court while dealing with this aspect as regards the proceedings under Section 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act held as under;
"5. In pith and substance proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries and settlement of disputes as to entries in annual registers as prescribed under Section 33 of the Act initiated or decided under 40 and 54 of the Act are all summery proceedings subject to determination of rights of the parties in holding by the competent court of jurisdiction.
6. The law is well-settled that:
(i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land involved is not decided;
(ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded;
(iii) they neither extinguish nor create title;
(iv) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and
(v) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court.
3. It is equally settled that the orders for mutation are passed on the basis of the possession of the parties and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided in mutation proceedings, ordinarily a writ petition is not maintainable in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings unless found to be totally without jurisdiction or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court. The parties are always free to get their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent court."
A coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mahesh Kumar Juneja and Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad Division and Ors. 2020 (3) ADJ 104 reiterated the same view and held as under;
"16. The settled legal position that entries in revenue records do not confer any title has been considered and discussed in a recent judgment of this Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors.13.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it may be restated that ordinarily orders passed by mutation courts are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction as they are in summary proceedings, and as such subject to a regular suit.
18. The mutation proceedings being of a summary nature drawn on the basis of possession do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. In view thereof this Court has consistently held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
In Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2019 (5) ADJ 212 Division Bench of this Court while dealing with an issue in regard to the land acquisition proceedings had the occasion to discuss the matter relating to revenue records and held as under;
"37. This Court may also take into consideration that it is settled law that the revenue records do not confer title and even if the entries in the revenue record of rights carry value that by itself would not confer any title upon the person claiming on the basis of the same.
38. The Supreme Court in Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors.3 held that entry in Jamabandi (revenue records) are not proof of title, and it was stated as follows:-
"2. ...It is settled law that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title. They are only statements for revenue purpose. It is for the parties to establish the relationship or title to the property unless there is unequivocal admission..."
Apex Court in case of Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. MANU/SC/0001/2014 while dealing with the entries of the revenue records relying upon the earlier judgments of the Apex Court, held that revenue records are not the document of title and the same cannot be basis for declaration of title. Relevant paragraph no. 17 is extracted here as under;
"17. This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that "it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff."
Thus, it had been constant view of the Apex Court as well as this Court that proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and no right or title is created. The title can only be seen in a regular suit filed for declaration and not in a writ petition which arises out of summary proceedings.
In view of the above the orders passed by the revenue authorities need no interference, however, it is open to the petitioner to file declaratory suit claiming his right over the land in dispute.
Writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 Shekhar